Chiefs Whitlock- It’s OK to question Pioli and the Chiefs - Page 22

C-Mac · 03-08-2009, 08:16 AM

It’s OK to question Pioli and the Chiefs

Wednesday afternoon, on my drive on I-70 to watch the Tigers and the Sooners tangle, I passed the time listening to sports-talk radio.

I find one of our local stations unlisten-Neal-able, so you can assume which station and which show entertained me along the highway. And you can guess which host nearly made me drive off the highway.

The New Don Fortune expressed his disinterest in needing access and information from our New Carl Peterson, Chiefs general manager Scott Pioli. The New Don and his trusty sidekick, Mad Jack Harry, spent several minutes telling their listeners that we should trust Pioli implicitly and not waste emotion or energy worrying whether Pioli reveals himself, his plans or his players to the media.

Having worked in sports-talk radio, I’m aware the discipline requires a dramatic and healthy loosening of journalistic standards. But basic common sense and backbone are allowed and occasionally encouraged when hosting a radio show.

Supporting the new regime does not equate to rejecting the primary (and redeeming) role of the media.

It’s our job to acquire information and pass it along to you. Based on what we’ve seen from the Bill Belichick era in New England and our first two months with Pioli, gathering pertinent and enlightening information about the Chiefs is going to be rather difficult.

The Patriots, under Belichick and Pioli, reached the conclusion that too much media access disrupts locker-room chemistry and undermines the voice of the head coach. In New England, Belichick has turned the Boston media into an easy-to-play foil for his players.

He’s brainwashed his players into believing the media are evil, incompetent and stirrers of chaos. Obviously, we are not perfect. A collection of human beings cannot be flawless. There are instances when individual moments of incompetence make the media appear wicked or solely interested in controversy.

But overall, we attempt to be a watchdog of those with power. When we fail to play that role, generally speaking, terrible things happen. The Iraq War is a worst-case scenario. We trusted our president implicitly, led the cheers when we declared war on Iraq and declined to demand answers to difficult questions. Hundreds of billions of dollars later, and with our economy in collapse, we now blame poor, minority homeowners for the fall of our society.

I apologize. I digress.

Let me give you a worst-case scenario in the sports world.

If, in an attempt to duplicate New England’s three-Super Bowls dynasty, we neglect our journalistic, democracy-ensuring duty to challenge Pioli, there’s a far better chance that he replicates Carl Peterson’s Kansas City era than Belichick’s New England one.

Unchallenged leaders are dictators and quickly turn unethical.

For years, Kevin Kietzman and Jack Harry whined on radio that Peterson, in attempts to have them fired, harassed their former television bosses. Kietzman and Harry complained about Peterson’s heavy-handed tactics with players, their agents and their families.

Peterson acquired his nickname, King Carl, the old-fashioned way. We rolled over and gave him a kingdom. When he ushered in an era of winning after years of mediocrity, he treated the media as though his decisions and actions were above question. He became complacent and stale.

Scott Pioli is a human being. He’s capable of making the same mistakes as you, I or King Carl.

Sometimes people misidentify why they’re successful. Belichick and Pioli think the New England locker room is special partly because Belichick and the players have made the local media irrelevant. Belichick and Pioli believe in CIA-like secrets.

I’m sure there’s some value in all of it. But football isn’t all that hard to figure out. Find yourself a tough, talented quarterback who is willing to stand in the pocket and deliver the football under pressure, pray that he doesn’t get injured, and you’ll win a lot of games.

The Sixburgh Steelers won four titles with Terry Bradshaw and two with Ben Roethlisberger. They’ve had three different young coaches lead them to those six titles. John Elway took the Broncos to five Super Bowls and won two. Kurt Warner has played in three Super Bowls. Brett Favre played in two. Peyton Manning and Donovan McNabb win a lot of football games. Did I mention Joe Montana, Troy Aikman and Tom Brady?

In his first big decision as general manager of the Kansas City Chiefs, Scott Pioli traded the 34th pick in the draft for Matt Cassel, a backup in college and in the pros. Because New England slapped Cassel with the franchise tag, Clark Hunt is going to pay Cassel a lot of money in 2009 or give him a big-ticket, long-term contract.

Everyone pretty much agrees the move makes sense for the Chiefs. Pioli still needs to publicly explain it, and it’s our job to seek a detailed explanation. We shouldn’t accept a brief statement on a press release.

It is fun and fashionable to beat up on the media. In our arrogance, we have refused to adequately police, examine and reshape ourselves. We’re paying a heavy price for our failure. We’re losing credibility.

It’s in your best interest to demand better from us. Don’t be fooled into believing we should go away or act as a propaganda machine for some newly-elected, popular-in-comparison-to-Peterson (or Bush) leader.

FAX · 03-09-2009, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

You have to agree, however, that it's not difficult to see the parallels in this particular situation.

Team in position to draft a talent QB early in the draft, and the GM elects to go with a known commodity. It's remarkable, frankly, how long this organization has gone without drafting a QB in round 1. Remarkable.

Now, Pioli brings the jewelry, and this means an awful lot. An awful lot, but still...

I certainly agree that the circumstances are similar. But it's like pitting the Blind Boys of Alabama vs. a Navy Seal team in a Capture The Flag contest.

You know, NFL teams don't spend high draft picks on young quarterbacks because they want to. They draft them because they have to. If they already had someone who was capable of leading the team to victories, winning seasons, and playoff berths for the next 10 years, they'd draft another position.

FAX

**DeezNutz** · 03-09-2009, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FAX

I certainly agree that the circumstances are similar. But it's like pitting the Blind Boys of Alabama vs. a Navy Seal team in a Capture The Flag contest.

You know, NFL teams don't spend high draft picks on young quarterbacks because they want to. They draft them because they have to. If they already had someone who was capable of leading the team to victories, winning seasons, and playoff berths for the next 10 years, they'd draft another position.

FAX

That's probably a very apt analogy, and I hope it remains so.

Not sure about the second part, though. Denver is a good example. Plummer, assuming he didn't go flaky, was capable of winning and getting a team into the playoffs. This didn't sway the Rat.

kc rush · 03-09-2009, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FAX

Pioli kicks Peterson's ass in every conceivable category (with the possible exception of the Sheer Incompetence Competition).

I guess it's going to take Chiefs fans and the media more time than I initially realized to come to grips with the fact that we aren't the same organization any longer.

FAX

How many USFL rings does Pioli have? Scoreboard Carl! /Mojo Jojo

FAX · 03-09-2009, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

... Not sure about the second part, though. Denver is a good example. Plummer, assuming he didn't go flaky, was capable of winning and getting a team into the playoffs. This didn't sway the Rat.

I would counter by saying that there are always variables that might affect a decision to draft an "elite" quarterback prospect. The mental stability of the current quarterback and/or the working relation between that quarterback and the coaching staff are just two of these.

It's conceivable, of course, that a team might use a high pick to draft a quarterback for developmental purposes. However, that's extremely unusual when the team actually believes they already have a guy with 8 to 10 years of solid leadership and winning left in him.

My point is this; why should the Chiefs (or any team, for that matter) draft a young quarterback if and when they honestly believe there's another guy out there who, A) Has already had NFL experience, B) Proven he can win, C) Has a good working relationship with the GM, D) Is a "known" quantity, and E) Is young enough to lead for the better part of a decade? Add the fact that, in our case, quarterback is just one of the positions of need since the team is full of holes on both sides of the ball, and you have yourself a ding dang answer as to why Pioli did what he did.

The problem we (Chiefs fans) have is that the vast majority of Carl's moves in player acquisition (since DT) turned out poorly. Carl was GM. Pioli is GM. Chiefs fans automatically assume that, if Pioli did something reminiscent of Carl, the results will be similar. It's understandable, but it's an example of cognitive dissonance. These are different circumstances merely because the participants are different.

FAX

BigRock · 03-09-2009, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth CarlSatan

I'm saying this "bargain" wasn't had for Vrabel and the pick alone. Oh they can work the paperwork however they please, but two more NE cap-relief acquisitions right behind Vrabel?

Come on man; wake up.

Are you talking about CJ Jones and Darrel Robertson? Because neither of those guys have any impact on the Pats' salary cap.

LOCOChief · 03-09-2009, 03:27 PM

This is the beginning of the end for fatass in kc, I've been waiting a long long time for this. My family will celebrate with even more vigar than we did when cp was shitcannned.

Hammock Parties · 03-09-2009, 04:06 PM

Sweet Daddy Hate · 03-09-2009, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRock

Are you talking about CJ Jones and Darrel Robertson? Because neither of those guys have any impact on the Pats' salary cap.

Irregardless, they free up roster space for new talent.

Hammock Parties · 03-09-2009, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth CarlSatan

Irregardless

WHAT THE ****, HOLMES?

Sweet Daddy Hate · 03-09-2009, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claythan

WHAT THE ****, HOLMES?

Ruh?

SenselessChiefsFan · 03-09-2009, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth CarlSatan

Irregardless, they free up roster space for new talent.

These guys weren't traded for. They were free agents. The Pats were not using roster space for these guys. These are completely unrelated moves.

**Mr. Flopnuts** · 03-09-2009, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claythan

WHAT THE ****, HOLMES?

No shit.

**Mr. Flopnuts** · 03-09-2009, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth CarlSatan

Ruh?

Regardless. To irr is to err.

Sweet Daddy Hate · 03-09-2009, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan

These guys weren't traded for. They were free agents. The Pats were not using roster space for these guys. These are completely unrelated moves.

So they were parking attendants?

Sweet Daddy Hate · 03-09-2009, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

Regardless. To irr is to err.

Meh.

To meh is to meh.

03-08-2009, 08:16 AM
C-Mac Lurker Extraordinaire Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Wally World Casino cash: $-1136301	Whitlock- It’s OK to question Pioli and the Chiefs It’s OK to question Pioli and the Chiefs Wednesday afternoon, on my drive on I-70 to watch the Tigers and the Sooners tangle, I passed the time listening to sports-talk radio. I find one of our local stations unlisten-Neal-able, so you can assume which station and which show entertained me along the highway. And you can guess which host nearly made me drive off the highway. The New Don Fortune expressed his disinterest in needing access and information from our New Carl Peterson, Chiefs general manager Scott Pioli. The New Don and his trusty sidekick, Mad Jack Harry, spent several minutes telling their listeners that we should trust Pioli implicitly and not waste emotion or energy worrying whether Pioli reveals himself, his plans or his players to the media. Having worked in sports-talk radio, I’m aware the discipline requires a dramatic and healthy loosening of journalistic standards. But basic common sense and backbone are allowed and occasionally encouraged when hosting a radio show. Supporting the new regime does not equate to rejecting the primary (and redeeming) role of the media. It’s our job to acquire information and pass it along to you. Based on what we’ve seen from the Bill Belichick era in New England and our first two months with Pioli, gathering pertinent and enlightening information about the Chiefs is going to be rather difficult. The Patriots, under Belichick and Pioli, reached the conclusion that too much media access disrupts locker-room chemistry and undermines the voice of the head coach. In New England, Belichick has turned the Boston media into an easy-to-play foil for his players. He’s brainwashed his players into believing the media are evil, incompetent and stirrers of chaos. Obviously, we are not perfect. A collection of human beings cannot be flawless. There are instances when individual moments of incompetence make the media appear wicked or solely interested in controversy. But overall, we attempt to be a watchdog of those with power. When we fail to play that role, generally speaking, terrible things happen. The Iraq War is a worst-case scenario. We trusted our president implicitly, led the cheers when we declared war on Iraq and declined to demand answers to difficult questions. Hundreds of billions of dollars later, and with our economy in collapse, we now blame poor, minority homeowners for the fall of our society. I apologize. I digress. Let me give you a worst-case scenario in the sports world. If, in an attempt to duplicate New England’s three-Super Bowls dynasty, we neglect our journalistic, democracy-ensuring duty to challenge Pioli, there’s a far better chance that he replicates Carl Peterson’s Kansas City era than Belichick’s New England one. Unchallenged leaders are dictators and quickly turn unethical. For years, Kevin Kietzman and Jack Harry whined on radio that Peterson, in attempts to have them fired, harassed their former television bosses. Kietzman and Harry complained about Peterson’s heavy-handed tactics with players, their agents and their families. Peterson acquired his nickname, King Carl, the old-fashioned way. We rolled over and gave him a kingdom. When he ushered in an era of winning after years of mediocrity, he treated the media as though his decisions and actions were above question. He became complacent and stale. Scott Pioli is a human being. He’s capable of making the same mistakes as you, I or King Carl. Sometimes people misidentify why they’re successful. Belichick and Pioli think the New England locker room is special partly because Belichick and the players have made the local media irrelevant. Belichick and Pioli believe in CIA-like secrets. I’m sure there’s some value in all of it. But football isn’t all that hard to figure out. Find yourself a tough, talented quarterback who is willing to stand in the pocket and deliver the football under pressure, pray that he doesn’t get injured, and you’ll win a lot of games. The Sixburgh Steelers won four titles with Terry Bradshaw and two with Ben Roethlisberger. They’ve had three different young coaches lead them to those six titles. John Elway took the Broncos to five Super Bowls and won two. Kurt Warner has played in three Super Bowls. Brett Favre played in two. Peyton Manning and Donovan McNabb win a lot of football games. Did I mention Joe Montana, Troy Aikman and Tom Brady? In his first big decision as general manager of the Kansas City Chiefs, Scott Pioli traded the 34th pick in the draft for Matt Cassel, a backup in college and in the pros. Because New England slapped Cassel with the franchise tag, Clark Hunt is going to pay Cassel a lot of money in 2009 or give him a big-ticket, long-term contract. Everyone pretty much agrees the move makes sense for the Chiefs. Pioli still needs to publicly explain it, and it’s our job to seek a detailed explanation. We shouldn’t accept a brief statement on a press release. It is fun and fashionable to beat up on the media. In our arrogance, we have refused to adequately police, examine and reshape ourselves. We’re paying a heavy price for our failure. We’re losing credibility. It’s in your best interest to demand better from us. Don’t be fooled into believing we should go away or act as a propaganda machine for some newly-elected, popular-in-comparison-to-Peterson (or Bush) leader.
Posts: 5,661

03-09-2009, 03:27 PM	#321
LOCOChief True Chiefs Fan Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Bull Bay Casino cash: $6605791	This is the beginning of the end for fatass in kc, I've been waiting a long long time for this. My family will celebrate with even more vigar than we did when cp was shitcannned.
Posts: 5,453

03-09-2009, 04:06 PM	#322
Hammock Parties I'll be back. Join Date: Nov 2002 Casino cash: $750478	__________________ Chiefs game films
Posts: 297,583